The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

Of the about 2.4 million votes that the CDU lost (compared to the last election), 1.1 million went to AfD and 1.4 million to FDP. Movements to/from other parties were negligible; they mobilized about 0.2 million previous non-voters for themselves.

And it takes until 2 hours and 42 minutes after polls close before the post-election TV debate between party heads and functionaries turns to the AfD candidate not denying their party finds pride in WW2...

P.S.: And 3 minutes later Merkel states that she considers the same topics as Katja Kipping of The Left important.

P.P.S. : And another 2 minutes until Schulz compares the SPD's move to become the opposition leader (not leaving that position to the AfD) to the historical context of the SPD being the only opposition party against Hitler in the Reichstag in 1933.

AfD managed to get three direct mandates in Eastern Saxony (Greens got one, Left five, SPD 59, CDU 231) - including a direct mandate for AfD leader Frauke Petry herself; forecasts had assumed the Green mandate, four of the five for the Left, 43 of the 59 for the SPD, none for AfD and 251 instead of those 231 for the CDU. At 705 parliamentarians it'll be the largest German parliament ever.

AfD actually managed to become largest party for the entire state of Saxony with a 0.1% lead over CDU.

Current prognosis amalgated from last five surveys, all taken during last week:

CDU - 37.8% - 236 seats (-59)

SPD - 23.4% - 146 seats (-36)

Left - 9.2% - 58 seats (-3)

AfD - 9.2% - 58 seats (+58)

FDP - 8.4% - 53 seats (+53)

Greens - 7.5% - 47 seats (-13)

Others - 4.5% - 0 seats

So, yeah. You need 299 seats for governing. No majority for CDU/FDP. No majority for SPD/Left/Green. So, we're gonna get yet another Grand Coalition. And, surprise, surprise, the relative strength of the CDU vs SPD hasn't changed in the slightest. Seriously. 38% of seats of a Grand Coalition going to the SPD. Both now and with the above result.

There's a total of 34 parties on the ballot, plus individual candidates from 8 further parties. Besides the 6 well-known parties above with chances to get into parliament, there's the following 36 others:

AfD managed to get three direct mandates in Eastern Saxony (Greens got one, Left five, SPD 59, CDU 231) - including a direct mandate for AfD leader Frauke Petry herself; forecasts had assumed the Green mandate, four of the five for the Left, 43 of the 59 for the SPD, none for AfD and 251 instead of those 231 for the CDU. At 705 parliamentarians it'll be the largest German parliament ever.

AfD actually managed to become largest party for the entire state of Saxony with a 0.1% lead over CDU.

The seat numbers in the predictions are based on the nominal strength of the Bundestag, i.e. 598 seats total. However, since half of these are direct mandates (elected in FPTP in the 299 voting districts) the second half is actually "enlarged" if one party gets more direct mandates than their vote share (to ensure PR *). Most of this enlargement then falls to the FDP, Greens and Left traditionally - out of the 246 seats the CDU got only 15 come from the party lists (in the "second half") while the other 231 were directly elected. To preserve PR, the Bundestag becomes larger the bigger the difference between direct mandates and voter share is.

The -3.4% compared to prediction for CDU is outside the error margin, but still not that unusual. There were apparently a very large number of people who tactically voted for the FDP instead to show their displeasure with the CDU - that's short-term decisions that aren't really predictable.

Due to the variable size, it's not quite that bad for party seat numbers either:

CDU : 227 out of 598 (38%) vs 246 out of 705 (35%)
SPD : 137 out of 598 (22.9%) vs 153 out of 705 (21.7%)
AFD : 66 out of 598 (11%) vs 94 out of 705 (13.3%)
FDP : 61 out of 598 (10.2%) vs 80 out of 705 (11.3%)
Left : 59 out of 598 (9.9%) vs 68 out of 705 (9.6%)
Green : 48 out of 598 (8%) vs 66 out of 705 (9.4%)

That's all within 20%, even for AfD and FDP, and in most cases close enough that we're talking about one or two mandates effective difference.

* It's even more complicated: every citizen casts two votes, one for FPTP and one for PR. These do not need to be the same, and splitting the vote to "assist" another party partially is pretty common. At the voting booth i voted at for example, 35% of people cast their FPTP vote towards the SPD candidate while only 20% gave the SPD as a party list their PR vote. This kind of vote splitting is common among people who give their PR vote towards one of the smaller parties and select the candidate of their choosing for FPTP from usually only the two most likely to win (typically it's CDU vs SPD, in some states CDU vs Left or CDU vs Green).

P.S.: The future AFD faction in the Bundestag is down to 93. Frauke Petry, chairwoman of the party until yesterday, and having won a direct mandate running under the party's colors, has announced she'll go independent.

P.S.: The future AFD faction in the Bundestag is down to 93. Frauke Petry, chairwoman of the party until yesterday, and having won a direct mandate running under the party's colors, has announced she'll go independent.

Numerically - on the second vote, the PR vote. Basically, we have two "classes" of representatives, those who earned a direct mandate for their party and those who were elected from a list in order to "round out" numbers so that each party gets as many seats as the proportional representation number requires.

Politically and legally it's a mixed FPTP/PR system, and i'm relatively sure one that doesn't exist in other countries that way.

Originally Posted by Double Edge

What is the rationale for two votes per citizen.

The rationale is to elect a local representative - through FPTP - to represent you at federal level through the first vote; and to elect a party or coalition of parties in accordance with the wishes of the overall population to run the country - through PR - through the second vote.

Most of the local representatives elected through direct mandates hold these posts for literally decades - they're basically sort of stable anchors. Usually, with this FPTP part of the election, people know who they're voting for, and quite often in person too. In my federal voting district the SPD and CDU candidates have been the same two guys since 1994, and both of them have won the direct mandate a couple times since then (the times they didn't they got their Bundestag seats through the party lists).

Also, mostly in theory, the direct mandates take care of "regional representation" - a party that has a strong turnout in a limited area can get federal representation for its local concerns that way even if they do not clear the 5% hurdle of the proportional system. In the first election in 1949 this was important to get a proper federal voice e.g. for the Bavarian Separatist Party, in 1994 after reunification also for the Party of Democratic Socialism (former East German government party, currently part of The Left).

Overall, it's part of the German system of checks and balances within the parliament crafted after WW2. It accomodates those who want stable stronghold representation and long-term posts; those who want proportional representation as a means to represent the voice of the entire population; through the 5% hurdle on the PR vote prevents the parliament from splintering into lobby groups with lots of infighting, urging the formation of larger parties; and through interaction between the FPTP and PR vote accomodates groups with only regional strongholds.

Originally Posted by Toby

Why would she do that?

The AfD is mostly split into a wing formed around Frauke Petry ("Realpolitiker") and a wing around Peter Gauland and Björn Höcke ("Fundamentalists"). Third group is the main wing around Jörg Meuthen, who mostly tries to keep the party together. This split has been fully evident since about half a year ago, after an affair in which Petry tried to get Höcke kicked out of the party to consolidate her position.
Politically, Petry's group is trying to make the AfD into a "people's party" appealing to conservatives in general, with the Austrian FPÖ as a role model. The Höcke/Gauland group by comparison are extremists who have no qualms putting forward neonazi concepts in public, which does not conform with what Petry's trying to do at all.

Each group has a main backer state AfD group, for Gauland and Höcke that's Thuringia, for Petry Saxony; other state AfD groups mostly back Meuthen. Supposedly immediately ahead of the election Petry's group has gained more traction among other state AfD groups though, to an extent that currently the mainstream press suggests that Petry is trying to split the new Bundestag AfD faction into a group of representatives joining her as a second rightwing faction besides the AfD.

Numerically - on the second vote, the PR vote. Basically, we have two "classes" of representatives, those who earned a direct mandate for their party and those who were elected from a list in order to "round out" numbers so that each party gets as many seats as the proportional representation number requires.

Politically and legally it's a mixed FPTP/PR system, and i'm relatively sure one that doesn't exist in other countries that way.

OK, if federal the seats are based on PR then i see why you went with percentages. It's the share that counts, how big each ones slice is as a percentage of the whole pie

The rationale is to elect a local representative - through FPTP - to represent you at federal level through the first vote; and to elect a party or coalition of parties in accordance with the wishes of the overall population to run the country - through PR - through the second vote.

Most of the local representatives elected through direct mandates hold these posts for literally decades - they're basically sort of stable anchors. Usually, with this FPTP part of the election, people know who they're voting for, and quite often in person too. In my federal voting district the SPD and CDU candidates have been the same two guys since 1994, and both of them have won the direct mandate a couple times since then (the times they didn't they got their Bundestag seats through the party lists).

The main point for FPTP is clear cut winners and at the regional level this is a good way of getting it. PR is more fuzzy and maybe better suited at the higher level

Guess the local reps hold their seats for decades because as more parties enter the contest the share required to win keeps decreasing. This is one of the complaints i hear in my country which is only FPTP. At the same time it also allows for some degree of stability. Anchors as you say

Also, mostly in theory, the direct mandates take care of "regional representation" - a party that has a strong turnout in a limited area can get federal representation for its local concerns that way even if they do not clear the 5% hurdle of the proportional system. In the first election in 1949 this was important to get a proper federal voice e.g. for the Bavarian Separatist Party, in 1994 after reunification also for the Party of Democratic Socialism (former East German government party, currently part of The Left).

Overall, it's part of the German system of checks and balances within the parliament crafted after WW2. It accomodates those who want stable stronghold representation and long-term posts; those who want proportional representation as a means to represent the voice of the entire population; through the 5% hurdle on the PR vote prevents the parliament from splintering into lobby groups with lots of infighting, urging the formation of larger parties; and through interaction between the FPTP and PR vote accomodates groups with only regional strongholds.

It's an interesting system, one that tries to gain the positives of both ways. Surprised to know that Germany had PR as early as 1949.

The AfD is mostly split into a wing formed around Frauke Petry ("Realpolitiker") and a wing around Peter Gauland and Björn Höcke ("Fundamentalists"). Third group is the main wing around Jörg Meuthen, who mostly tries to keep the party together. This split has been fully evident since about half a year ago, after an affair in which Petry tried to get Höcke kicked out of the party to consolidate her position.
Politically, Petry's group is trying to make the AfD into a "people's party" appealing to conservatives in general, with the Austrian FPÖ as a role model. The Höcke/Gauland group by comparison are extremists who have no qualms putting forward neonazi concepts in public, which does not conform with what Petry's trying to do at all.

Each group has a main backer state AfD group, for Gauland and Höcke that's Thuringia, for Petry Saxony; other state AfD groups mostly back Meuthen. Supposedly immediately ahead of the election Petry's group has gained more traction among other state AfD groups though, to an extent that currently the mainstream press suggests that Petry is trying to split the new Bundestag AfD faction into a group of representatives joining her as a second rightwing faction besides the AfD.

My first thought was infighting. Very common among smaller parties. Always this tension over which direction will lead to the jackpot. Until they figure it out they are always contesting with their hands tied and the mainstream parties exploit this to the max. Now if Petry is trying t appeal to conservatives what stops mainstream conservate parties from hijacking her positions like happens so often elsewhere. In the end she will have to join the conservatives and the remainder of Afd will remain fringe. She can form her own party and then be splitting the vote, either way is a win for the mainstream

Some articles i read did not differentiate between the factions and paint Petry in the same light as Gauland/Hocke ie AfD is all neo nazis. And Saxony is at the heart of it because of grudges going back to the war